I agree with the majority of posts in here. If a film has to be seen in 3D to be appreciated and is rubbish without it, then it is a rubbish film. Besides, there would be no DVD's sold of the bloody things.

3D makes all movies worse. Emphasis is taken away from dialogue and story and placed in the visuals, meaning that it is unbalanced. Plus 3D always makes me feel ill.

Avatar in 2D: Avatar in 3D:

Says the person who loves Fantasia, where there are no story or dialogue and its a purely visual film. Avatar could have been a silent film and you would still have seen how it ended coming a mile away, it was a functional plot but that wasnt the point, it was the experience of seeing it in 3D. Its the first "event" movie since the LOTR trilogy was around, where people who have little interest in going to the cinema are going in droves to see what its all about, surely thats a good thing? Cinemagoing has become an experience again, where downloading or waiting for the dvd just wont do it, and you'll go out of your way to see a movie the way it was intended.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

3D moving images are not films, they're holograms, and should be treated as a separate medium of storytelling, or artform.

I agree with the majority of posts in here. If a film has to be seen in 3D to be appreciated and is rubbish without it, then it is a rubbish film. Besides, there would be no DVD's sold of the bloody things.

3D makes all movies worse. Emphasis is taken away from dialogue and story and placed in the visuals, meaning that it is unbalanced. Plus 3D always makes me feel ill.

Avatar in 2D: Avatar in 3D:

Says the person who loves Fantasia, where there are no story or dialogue and its a purely visual film. Avatar could have been a silent film and you would still have seen how it ended coming a mile away, it was a functional plot but that wasnt the point, it was the experience of seeing it in 3D. Its the first "event" movie since the LOTR trilogy was around, where people who have little interest in going to the cinema are going in droves to see what its all about, surely thats a good thing? Cinemagoing has become an experience again, where downloading or waiting for the dvd just wont do it, and you'll go out of your way to see a movie the way it was intended.

Unfortunatly i don't think 3D is going anywhere too soon, hell, Sky are releasing a box soon to cope with it. I am however getting a bit tired of it in films. Games are going to be different matter, but it would be nice of hollywood to stop releasing films in retrofitted 3D and then charging me an extra £2 to see it. I don't mind the odd kids film (Toy Story and Monsters VS Aliens) but it seems almost every animated film is cashing in whilst they can.

Says the person who loves Fantasia, where there are no story or dialogue and its a purely visual film.

Unlike Avatar.

quote:

Avatar could have been a silent film and you would still have seen how it ended coming a mile away, it was a functional plot but that wasnt the point, it was the experience of seeing it in 3D.

Why is the 3D the main drawcard for this film? It's a visual feast in two dimensions, and the visuals actually enhanced the very simple plot. Cameron got greedy and thought that he needed that extra dimension to make it good.

quote:

Its the first "event" movie since the LOTR trilogy was around, where people who have little interest in going to the cinema are going in droves to see what its all about, surely thats a good thing?

Not if it means the audiences only care about 3D, which is what you seem to be implying.

quote:

Cinemagoing has become an experience again, where downloading or waiting for the dvd just wont do it,

Cinemagoing never ceased to be an experience for me. I look around at the public and wonder why they only come to the cinema if an extravaganza of some kind was showing, and not for the good stuff.

Unfortunatly i don't think 3D is going anywhere too soon, hell, Sky are releasing a box soon to cope with it. I am however getting a bit tired of it in films. Games are going to be different matter, but it would be nice of hollywood to stop releasing films in retrofitted 3D and then charging me an extra £2 to see it. I don't mind the odd kids film (Toy Story and Monsters VS Aliens) but it seems almost every animated film is cashing in whilst they can.

But to charge the extra 2 quid they have to supply the glasses, have extra staff on to give everyone the glasses and so on, but the rest of your point is valid. retro fitted 3D bad and annoying.

Mamma Mia took over £130 million, while The Dark Knights total was under £90 million in the UK. Mamma Mia was the highest ever box office success in the UK til Avatar (which has only just passed it, and only by $3 million, so if you remove the extra earned by 3D Mamma Mia is ahead of even that!).

In short, and rather embarrassingly Mamma Mia was our cultural phenomenon at the cinema. Thats the film that dragged those who don't venture to the cinema out.

Working in a cinema, its obvious just how much of a draw 3D is.. The amount of people who say 'it's in 3D, right?' on a daily basis is staggering.. I remember when people just wanted to know if the film was good or not.

A few months ago, when 3d was just kicking off, I was all for it - but now..It painful watching parents bring five kids to see a 3D film and struggle to shell out 60-70 quid it costs to buy the tickets.. the cinema shouldn't cost that much!! It's not going to go away, either - studios are going to follow in the footsteps of the highest grossing film of all time, and slap a big 3D sign on their film, because as far as I can tell, the crazy prices aren't stopping people selling out the screens - for about 3 months Avatar sold out every show, every day. Alice in Wonderland is performing similarly - even though the 3D is nothing special, I popped my head in without glasses on, happily watched for a good 10 minutes without needing to put any on..

I agree, 3D is a gimmick, designed to double ticket prices, and so long as people are happy to pay double and feel slightly underwhelmed, it's gonna stick around for the foreseeable future.

(that said, I'd totally get a 3DTV for playing games on, but that's a different thing..)

_____________________________

"Now i don't know much about security lighting, but i'm guessing they'll be using 180-degree dispersing halogens with motion sensors"

The cinema I go to does not charge extra for watching the 3D version - Movie House chain in Northern Ireland. Maybe others in the UK will soon follow - hopefully it won't go the other way for Movie House, since 3D has exploded in popularity!

Working in a cinema, its obvious just how much of a draw 3D is.. The amount of people who say 'it's in 3D, right?' on a daily basis is staggering.. I remember when people just wanted to know if the film was good or not.

A few months ago, when 3d was just kicking off, I was all for it - but now..It painful watching parents bring five kids to see a 3D film and struggle to shell out 60-70 quid it costs to buy the tickets.. the cinema shouldn't cost that much!! It's not going to go away, either - studios are going to follow in the footsteps of the highest grossing film of all time, and slap a big 3D sign on their film, because as far as I can tell, the crazy prices aren't stopping people selling out the screens - for about 3 months Avatar sold out every show, every day. Alice in Wonderland is performing similarly - even though the 3D is nothing special, I popped my head in without glasses on, happily watched for a good 10 minutes without needing to put any on..

I agree, 3D is a gimmick, designed to double ticket prices, and so long as people are happy to pay double and feel slightly underwhelmed, it's gonna stick around for the foreseeable future.

Thing is, when I talk to my friends about 3D virtually all of them say the same thing along the lines of 'it's alright, don't see what the fuss is about' and/or 'hurts my eyes'. Most of them probably only go to the cinema 2 or 3 times a year so they are hardly purists and they are less than overwhelmed by the 3D 'revolution'.

I dont really see what the big fuss is, if you think its a gimmick, just go to the non 3D version, if you dont think it matters to how much you'll enjoy the movie or hurts your eyes see the normal version instead.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

3D moving images are not films, they're holograms, and should be treated as a separate medium of storytelling, or artform.

I dont really see what the big fuss is, if you think its a gimmick, just go to the non 3D version, if you dont think it matters to how much you'll enjoy the movie or hurts your eyes see the normal version instead.

There has already been one film shown in my city that didn't have a 2D version showing. It was The Final Destination. It may have been crap, but it doesn't matter. It worried me. I worry for this year's release of Toy Story 3.

Why does 3D cost more anyway? Isn't it still a single piece of celluloid with the "unwatchable" double image on it?

You're paying for the cinemas costs to upgrade their system. Which is a little unfair, as surely its their obligation to actually have the equipment needed to operate?

Personally, following a disastrous screening of Alice In Wonderland I've decided to give up on 3D for the immediate future. I'll probably see Tron in 3D in December, but in the meantime I'll stick to 2D. And that includes Toy Story 3, as I had a much better time with UP in 2D on Blu-ray than I did at the theatre in 3D.

People who want to watch film as it always has been are, yes. Including myself. It's not a derogatory term.

For how long, exactly?

Film is a constantly changing medium. Not saying I agree with 3D, cos I don't, but to say that it has been constant is a fallacy.

I was referring to watching moving pictures on a screen with sound. That hasn't changed, other than the places that you can do this.

"Watching moving pictures on a screen with sound" aptly describes 3D as well, though. This is my point: it's one more development along the lines of sound, colour, widescreen... It's a development - maybe not a good one - but another step.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

Bristol Bad Film Club A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

The thing is that there has only been truely a handful of 3D films which are the genuine article. For studios, if they can shoot a film in the traditonal method, along with tradtional effect shots, then convert it into 3D (a la Alice and Clash) then they are not spending double money for effects works - one of the reasons that Avatar cost so much. If people are willing to shell out more money for movies which aren't "true" 3D then why should the studios go to all the effort and time of making what is still an expensive process?

For me, the only 3D movie I will be seeing in the near future is Tron - the next true 3D movie.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.